Kenngo1969

"Worlds without number," indeed (see Moses 1:33)!

From a criminal liability standpoint, George Zinn's support of Tyler Robinson can be inferred from the fact that, whatever his motives or intentions were, George Zinn's actions did, in fact, support [aid, help, etc.] Robinson.

"Put an end to this nonsense"? Well, I guess Tyler Robinson did a damn good job of that, didn't he? Tyler Robinson did a damn good job of that.

I strongly suspect that, at worst, the reaction will be, "Son, no harm, no foul." I would be exceedingly surprised if all that heavy a grudge will be borne against you.

With due respect, for all the world, it seems to me that you are avoiding genuine issues in favor of quibbling about semantics. Whatever crime or crimes former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did or did not commit, it is an inescapable fact that Charlie Kirk is d*ead due to a bullet fired from the f!rearm possessed by Tyler Robinson.

To each, one's own, I suppose, but, as for me, I would think that anyone who attempted to run interference for Mr. Robinson by claiming falsely to have shot Charlie Kirk (and thereby to have [at least allegedly] obstructed justice) would qualify as an actual defender/supporter.

Yet, still, you laughed: Curious, that.

Charlie Kirk was talking about President Biden being given the death penalty for an alleged crime. However ridiculous that might seem to someone who reads or who hears that comment (and I'm not even suggesting that there aren't good reasons for someone to find such a comment ridiculous), the fact is that, in a free society where due process, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and so on, prevail, being sentenced to death for an alleged crime is a far different thing than Mr. Kirk being executed summarily for his alleged "crimes" of thought and "crimes" of speech. And, with all due respect, I think you are intelligent enough to recognize the difference: Your pretending otherwise does not serve you well. In any event, here's what I said earlier in the thread, which I think you're also intelligent enough to recognize and to consider: Again, your pretending otherwise does not serve you well (though, in fairness, the thread is moving somewhat quickly and is growing rather long, so perhaps you simply missed it. Here it is again:

OK. Your stance illustrates the very reason for the existence of this thread. Tyler Robinson thought that Charlie Kirk's opinions are so hurtful that he deserved to die for them. QED. Thanks.

Why do you find that funny, @Duncan? (Just asking.)

In related news: Man claimed to shoot Charlie Kirk to ‘draw attention from the real shooter,’ police say – Deseret News Yeahhh ... about that: You should probably avoid ch!ld p*rn if you're gonna try to do that. Just sayin'! (Nobody ever said that Mr. Robinson's defenders come from among the sharpest tools in the drawer ...) Well—don't take my word for anything, of course, because I am not an attorney—but, under Utah law, that is the absolute textbook definition of Obstruction of Justice, right there: Utah Code Annotated, Title 76, Chapter 8, Section 306:

"A mark of civilization is that we do not have to go to blows or bullets, that we can have discourse and debate." —Charlie Kirk Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rKiqkRrl4Dk?feature=share RIP, Charlie Kirk, October 14, 1993—September 10, 2025

I'm not calling anyone here out, no. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

No disrespect, but no one's opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ever has harmed anyone, much less any children, just as your First Amendment right to your opinion, on whatever subject, never has harmed anyone.

That's not what I'm claiming. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Here it is again, for your convenience: I have heard (but I don't know anyone specifically and cannot name names) that even some on BYU's campus were celebrating Mr. Kirk's death.

You—I’m using the “royal you” here, speaking generally and not to anyone in particular—may not like the opinions of another; you may disagree with them, which you are entirely free to do. But when we disagree with another person’s opinion, we take it up with that person and/or with those who are of like mind with that person—with reasoning, with logic, with sound argumentation, with persuasion. We speak out with our pens, our voices, our votes. Not with firearms and b*llets. We don’t settle grievances or perceived injustices with violence—at least, largely, we didn’t used to. Whatever one’s opinion on a particular topic, and wherever one fell along the political spectrum, a unifying value that was held nearly universally—again, across the political spectrum, it seemed to me—was that, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, if necessary, your right to say it.” No longer. Now, the kind of action that, formerly, would have drawn universal condemnation from all across the political spectrum, now, is being debated even among people that I considered, more or less, to be reasonable, even if I disagreed with them about a great number of things—or even about almost everything else. Now, some of those people are saying, in essence if not in actual substance, Well, perhaps Mr. Kirk deserved to die because of his vile opinions. That used to be the sort of red line that hardly anyone ever was willing to cross. Again, no longer. And that’s the problem.

I sent a letter to Senator Sanders regarding these very comments. As tempted as I might be, from a political and policy standpoint, to disagree with almost every word that comes out of Senator Sanders' mouth, he is absolutely spot-on here. I laud[ed] him for it, and I expressed dismay that so many of his colleagues seemed so reluctant to follow suit. And to the extent it would be true of Republicans if someone from the opposite party faced such a tragic fate, it would be [and is] wrong then, too. Time was, any incident like the assassination of Charlie Kirk would have received swift, widespread condemnation from people who occupy points all along the political spectrum. Sadly, not so today. It seems that, instead, far too many of Senator Sanders' colleagues have engaged in a political calculation to determine whether Mr. Kirk's murder benefits "their [our] side" and, in light of an affirmative answer, have determined to stay silent instead. If we're not willing to stand up for the basic right even of people with whom we disagree to express those opposing views, how can we expect others to stand up for our rights even when they disagree with us? I'm reminded of this, from Pastor Martin Niemoller: Also, the "some murders are worse than others depending on who the victim is" posture that some [too many, in my view] have taken regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk reminds me of this bit of dialogue from Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons. In it, More, his son-in-law, William Roper, More's wife, Alice, and More's daughter, Margaret, are discussing what they believe should happen to More's nemesis, the scheming, conniving Richard Rich. Although Rich eventually betrays More, leading to the latter's false conviction and execution, at this point in the play, he has not yet done anything that would be worthy of criminal sanction, as More points out: If we want the benefit of law ourselves, we must be willing to give the benefit of law to people even when we wonder if they truly deserve it.

I am aware, fully and completely, that there is no shortage of tragic events in this world, nor of fully sympathetic victims of such tragedies—"In the world, ye shall tribulation." If you would like to start a thread about anyone else and any tragic events that have befallen that person, if I have anything useful and of substance to contribute, I will be most willing to participate.

In fairness, this thread was started by someone who works near where Charlie Kirk was sh*t, shortly after that tragic event, so it's only natural that the thread would be about what happened to him, the aftermath, its implications, and so on. That does not mean that no other, similar tragic event is worthy of considerable notice or discussion, that no one cares about similar tragic events, or that no one else with the ability to do so could or should start such a discussion. And speaking of children, perhaps you might be better off not allowing any antipathy you might harbor for Mr. Kirk to obscure the fact that he left behind two very young children who will, at least in mortality, never know their father.

Actually, you have more answers than you think you do. As much as politics fascinate me, and as much as I might be willing to engage in the "rough-and-tumble" and the "give-and-take" of political debate as anyone, a couple of years ago, as I was [frankly] lamenting the then-probable re-election of then-President Joe Biden [and, heck, while we're at it, this applies equally to anyone who might be lamenting the reelection of once-and-current President Donald J. Trump] the thought came to me, "Ken, politics isn't going to save anyone. Only Christ can do that." I have reflected on that again, and again, and again since that moment.

I just watched this, linked below, in its entirety. If even a fraction of the things Mr. Kirk's detractors are saying about him and about his positions are even close to being true, this gentleman, Amir Odom, has more than a few reasons to hate him that would be perfectly valid. Yet, Mr. Odom doesn't hate Mr. Kirk. (Strange, that!) He goes through many of those reasons, one by one, and critiques them: In essence, if not in actual substance, he says, "People hate Charlie Kirk because they say he has said [x] about [y]. This is what he actually has said about [y]." The whole thing is worth a watch/listen: My comment on the video was in response to something someone else posted (I can't remember whether Mr. Odom said it or whether Mr. Kirk said, it, but, either way, in this particular moment, it is appropriate: "Don't Become the Hate You Claim to Fight." P.S.: I forgot: My comment was, "I think that would be a fitting epitaph for Charlie's headstone."

For whatever this is worth at this point, see the below. I'll hasten to add that I'm not defending everything Charlie Kirk ever said, about any topic whatsoever or about any particular topic. And I'm not suggesting the misrepresentation mentioned below had anything to do with his death. That said, while it's easy for us to get our dander up about these sorts of things, as the old saying goes, "A lie jumps out of bed and makes it halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on."

And [while in no way am I attempting to discount your insight, which I think is valid and a good one], perhaps most importantly, because Someone Else was lifted up upon a cross, as well!

Yeah, I think, actually, there is a lot to that idea. After all, Paul did tell the Hebrews, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Hebrews 12:6). And as Paul wrote to the Romans, "(B)ut we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Romans 5:3-5. And John the Revelator did tell us that the Lord said, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (Revelation 3:19). And in modern revelation, He said, "And my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer” (D&C 105:6). And, “My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom” (D&C 136:31). And, “For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified” (D&C 101:5). And from the Book of Mormon, "Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith. Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people” (Mosiah 23:21–22). I got these scriptures from the following address: Elder D. Todd Christofferson (April 2011) "As Many as I Love, I Rebuke and Chasten," Ensign, accessed on line at the following address, this and other links last accessed on September 6, 2025: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2011/04/as-many-as-i-love-i-rebuke-and-chasten?lang=eng. For the original source of Elder Christofferson's account of President Hugh B. Brown [and the currant bush] as reprinted in The Liahona (March 2002), see The New Era (January 1973) at the following link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2002/03/the-currant-bush?lang=eng I like this, too, from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, via GoodReads, last accessed September 6, 2025:

Well, I'm glad you [all] made it through the long day. Thanks! 👍